Winning the War on Muslim "Terrorists" by Not Fighting At All

There is no reason whatever to believe that Osama bin Laden or any other identified so-called "terrorist" is trying to take away American constitutional freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, etc. There is no reason whatever to believe that Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan or Egypt or Iran or anywhere else believe they can invade the United States and establish strict Muslim fundamentalism amongst the hedonistic American society.

Rather, the so-called war on terrorism is really a war of competition for planetary resources, which the Americans seek to control, particularly economic resources such as petroleum and raw materials which make the American way of life possible. The so-called "terrorists", rather than waging philosophical war against freedom, are in reality waging a defensive war designed to prevent further American encroachment on their own soils, resources and cultures.

By turning the War on Terrorism into a full-scale, long-term military conflict, the basic problems are exacerbated, prolonged, and guaranteed to promote futility in solution-building. More war requires more petroleum, more resources, more violence, more hardware, more wealth, more encroachment, more resistance.

If, as American governments were serious about reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil, or better yet, eliminating American dependence on foreign oil, there would be little terrorism or little to fight over. If America decided to win the war on terrorism by simply not fighting it and thus removing grievances from foreign peoples and organizations who wish to prevent further American encroachment, the war could be won with minimal loss of life and expense.

It was reported this week that the real American military budget for this year was well over $700 Billion — approaching $800 Billion! Imagine winning a war by reducing military activity and reducing American interventionism around the world! Imagine winning a war of competition for planetary resources by simply going to the marketplace and purchasing commodities at prices agreeable to buyer and seller, without armed interventionism. If American sought security in its access to petroleum in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere, why should not the marketplace and American demand not provide incentive for oil producers around the world to sell to us?

America has a completely backward approach to commerce. America wants to threaten and use military force to ensure access to markets that themselves require American participation to remain viable. America as a nation and as a people would be far better off by drastically reducing military expenditures and adventurism and placing those hundreds of billions of dollars of military spending into its own infrastructure and its own education systems and its own debt reduction in order to maximize American value-added participation in the world marketplace.

Instead of participating in world commerce by strength of intellect and production of marketable products and ideas, America’s governing elite has shifted to militarism as a profit-maker for the investor class, but against the best interests of the taxpayer and worker. And America’s public is constantly deceived by the same military/industrial/media complex into believing that our "enemies" hate us for who we are, rather than for what we have done.

The 9/11 commission has foisted this sort of mythical thinking on the American people, as if America was an entirely innocent victim of 9/11 and the only way to solve the "problem" of terrorism is to multiply the very factors that brought 9/11 to us in the first place! This approach is highly profitable to American business in the short-term, but obscenely harmful to the long-term prospects of the American people both economically, politically, and ecologically.

We know that the American economy and land use practices, including contributions to global warming, long-term food production, and economic growth are simply not sustainable under the laws of ecological economics. Instead of reducing the economy, which is on a war-time footing, and reducing our threats to world peace by rolling back our encroachments and provocations against the Muslim World and other world partners, the American elite seeks short-term militarism and long-term bankruptcy. We would be better off fighting the so-called "War on Terrorism" by not fighting at all in military terms. The American people would be better off in the long-term by quitting the process of provocation and encroachment on the soils, cultures, and resources of foreign nations.

We would be better off working cooperatively with our world neighbors to treat "terrorism" as a law enforcement problem, which requires far less resource consumption to deal with than military action. Tens of thousands of victims would not be created by so-called "collateral damage" by sending Interpol and the FBI to root out terrorism than by sending the Special Forces.

A smaller, sustainable American economy supporting a smaller defense-oriented American military would make possible a stronger American future, with resultant peace and ecological health making for an improved, prosperous future.

The American people ought to think carefully about such matters. Desire for revenge never settled any international conflict, and America, despite its military preeminence, cannot fight the whole world and win. But American can bankrupt itself by overextending itself and alienating former friends and allies.

George W. Bush doesn’t get this. Neither does John Kerry. Ralph Nader does, and so does Dennis Kucinich. Why are not the best candidates the most viable ones in America today? Will America be led to disaster by the corporate-directed political parties before Americans wake up?

POPULAR CATEGORY

Media Monitors Network (MMN) is a non-profit, non-partial and non-political platform for those serious Media Contributors and Observers who crave to know and like to help to prevail the whole truth about current affairs, any disputed issue or any controversial issue by their voluntarily contributions with logic, reason and rationality.